The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-02-08
z II THE FIsHERfEIs.a y
MAT ~ .aHF
Secretary Manning's Letter to
Perry Belmont.
hl.s-l.A Eli In aY-H ln4M na
A REVIEW OF THE TROUBLE.
The Alabama Treaty Ambiguity
Must Be northumberland
Tariff Laws Disgrace.
The Fisheries.

w ASHlNGION, HGDEu3Ty O.-OCC1CCoA5
Manning has sent to Perry Belmont,
chairman of the House committee on
foreign affairs, a long and carefully pre-
pared reply to the request of that com
mittee for his views with regard to the
House and Senate retaliation bills, and
for any suggestions he may desire to
make with reference thereto. The
Secretary divided the subject to e
considered into two parts, first, fishing
rights OF the United States, and second,
CONNIE cial rights of United States
vessels in Canadian ports. The rights
of the former class, he says, are defined
by the treaties of 1873 and 1918, and
I'VE do not ask either of Great Britain
or Canada any other rights or liberties
of taking drying or curing. fish than
those stipulated in such treaties.
In respect to the commercial
privileges for our. fishing vessels
in Canadian ports the situation is other
ise ,pp to President Jackson's pro-
clamation of October 5, 1880, this gov
eminent had no commercial privileges
for It's vessels in Canadian ports. We
had such privileges as colonists;
| we lost them as colonists. We regained
them in 1880 by the regulation of leg S.
lation finally concerted with Great
| Britain, which was the result of an in
| ternationaI understanding that was in
effect, although not technically, treaty.
| The Secretary then reviews at some
length the history OF the relations be-
tween the governments of the
United States and Great Britain
in this respect from 1888 to 1880.
l am not aware, the Secretary says. of
| ha g. Il.
of the treaty of 1913, and the treaty of
| 1871, or of any rule, of international
law, binding on the United States.
which now constrains Great Britain 30
commercial intercourse with US in
| Canadian ports, and from the view of
this department Great Britain can, if
she deems it for her best interest, or ne
cessary for her safety, retreat from
the understandings and agreements of
1880. i be Canadian law of 1886, which
| peremptorily closes Canadian ports
to our fishing vessels seeking to trade,
empowers any of the designated
officials to bring to and search any
American vessel being within any
Canadian harbor, or lowering in
British waters. THIS is revival in
Canada of the theory of the ancient
British towering act" long ago re-
pealed in the mother country. If the
search prescribed and authorized be of
fishing vessel lettering in prohibited
place and fairly suspected of preparing
there to fish in violation of law, such
search, if fairly and reasonably
made, may be tolerated. Our
own custom law prescribes and
authorizes a similar search Of a foreign
| vessel, even four leagues from our coast;
but the Canadian act thus having The
| Royal approval Was intended, as has
| been openly avowed, TO forfeit any
American fishing vessel. which is found
! having entered Canadian waters or the
port of Halifax to buy ice, bait or other
articles or for any purpose other than
than shelter, repairs, wood or water.
| That plea is that the treaty of 1918 per-
nit and stipulates for such legislation.
That we deny and reply that
such legislation is a repeal
and annulment by England of
the arrangement made in 1880 and
to that repeal we are entitled to res
pond by q similar repeal of Our own
law, and by the refusal hereafter and
while the debate or negotiation goes on
to defer hospitality or any privileges
whatever in our points to Canadian YES
sells or boats. Any suspension of com
| ity may be looked bpon as an I'M
| friendly act, but not cause for just war
England may judge for herself of the
nature and extent of its comfy and the
courtesy she Will show 10 US. In the
present case We do not propose retalia-
ton. We simply respond that we
too suspend comfy and hospital
! ity; and now comes the ques-
tiR what shall be the character
and limitation of response? Shall we
only exclude Canadian fish, or both
them and all merchandise coming from
Canada by any sort of vehicle? Urder
what conditions can the negotiations go
on with the least injury to ourselves.
our dignity and self respect? l cannot
| believe that the government at London
will persist in its present course, unless
| inspired for some occult reason Dv
purpose to break the friendly relations
with our. elves, or unless under the will
and at the mercy of its colonies"
The secretary then considers the ques-
ton whether or not articles % and %
of the Alabama treaty were left stand
| ing by the act of Congress OF June Is,
1888, and the Presidents proclamation
hereunder. IF then" he concludes,
1.-The stipulations of this article are now
binding on Great Britain, then it is
indisputable that our vessels are en-
titled by treaty to enter fish as mer-
chandise at the proper custom house
of any Canadian port for conveyance
in bond to the United States, of neces
sity, the vessel containing the fish is
entitled to enter the port in order to
enter the merchandise at the proper
custom house" In considering the
bill submitted to him, Secretary
Manning says that he is extremely re-
luctant to discuss any bill which after
debate has been adopted in the Senate
| by vote almost unanimous, and that
he does so only from the point of view
of the need of the Treasury Depart
ment to which Will be committed
the execution of the proclamation
issued by the President under the pro-
| posed measure, if it shall become law"
He says, as the Senate bill shall be-
come law, and the President shall issue
his proclamation hereunder, besides
putting an end to traffic, its effect will
be to exclude, from importation CANA
dian free goods, such as certain kinds of
fish. lumber animals, etc., to the
amount of about S2,s00000 annually,
and also of reducing the revenue by